Port to Plains Corridor (I-27 extension) officially signed into law!

[Thegeet]

FFR, will I-27 use existing corridors (like I-69) or will it be built on new terrain?

[Bobby5280]

I would expect the extension from Lubbock Southward to upgrade existing US-87 with not much new terrain road needed. Nearly all the properties along US-87 between Lubbock and Tahoka are on enough of a setback to allow continuous frontage roads to be added (where they're not already present). I don't know if the US-87 freeway segment in Tahoka will need any minor upgrades; that freeway segment has existing since at least the early 1980's.

Obviously Lamesa needs a new bypass to the East of town. A possible I-27W/I-27E split would happen South of town. Problems in Big Spring are already solved with the new half loop bypass that was recently completed. It will be interesting to see how TX DOT deals with that volleyball interchange. Will they convert that into a 5-level directional stack?

Sterling City, the other location where I-27W/I-27E would begin/end would need a new terrain bypass, probably around the North side of town to avoid the Concho River on the South side of town. US-87 going SE into the San Angelo area looks like it would be pretty easy to upgrade to full Interstate standards. Most of the road that hasn't already been upgraded to a freeway is flanked by existing frontage roads. I can't tell if there would be any road curve geometry issues US-277 between San Angelo and Del Rio. The terrain out there has lots of small hills.

An I-27 extension North out of Amarillo looks a little more iffy.  Building I-27 up to Dumas would pose little problem other than having to build short frontage road segments to maintain ranch or oil well access in spots. Dumas needs a freeway bypass though. If TX DOT is serious about building an I-27 leg from Dumas to Texline that would push any Dumas bypass around the West side of town. That would still be the easiest location anyway.

[kphoger]

I can't tell if there would be any road curve geometry issues US-277 between San Angelo and Del Rio. The terrain out there has lots of small hills.

Not just small hills.  US-277 between TX-55 and US-377 is very hilly and curvy–especially curvy.  I take speed advisories pretty seriously along that stretch, especially because a number of them combine hills and curves such that active braking is required to navigate.  Most notable in my mind is just above Mail Trail Creek, which gets a well-deserved 55 mph speed advisory.

(It's especially nerve-racking at dusk, when 62,000 deer like to feed right along the edge lines.)

[The Ghostbuster]

I don't think there should be any Interstate 27Es or 27Ws. Two of them should be mainline 27 and the other two should be numbered Interstate 227 and Interstate 427. They were able to get away with Interstates 35E and 35W in Dallas/Fort Worth, they shouldn't have got away with Interstates 69C/69E/69W, and they defiantly shouldn't get away with any 27Es or 27Ws. By the way, has the 27E/W designations actually been proposed in Lamesa and Sterling City, or is there still time to make them 227 and 427?

[Bobby5280]

The I-27E/I-27W thing doesn't bother me. Midland-Odessa is a bigger metro than Big Spring, but Big Spring is on the US-87 main line where I-27 needs to be. A suffixed I-27E/I-27W approach would split the difference and not leave either metro feeling like they got short changed.

Here's another idea. Mind you, I don't like the I-14 thing, but that route number could be used as a consolation prize for Midland-Odessa. Big Spring gets the I-27 main line. Midland gets two different Interstate routes. From Lamesa down to Midland that route could be signed as a I-X27 route, such as "I-227". Connect it into Loop-250 and flip a coin on whether "I-227" takes over the East half or West half of Loop-250. I-14 would begin at I-20 somewhere on the Southeast side of Midland and then overlap TX-158 to Sterling City. From there you would have a I-14/I-27 concurrency into San Angelo.

[ethanhopkin14]

The I-27E/I-27W thing doesn't bother me. Midland-Odessa is a bigger metro than Big Spring, but Big Spring is on the US-87 main line where I-27 needs to be. A suffixed I-27E/I-27W approach would split the difference and not leave either metro feeling like they got short changed.

Here's another idea. Mind you, I don't like the I-14 thing, but that route number could be used as a consolation prize for Midland-Odessa. Big Spring gets the I-27 main line. Midland gets two different Interstate routes. From Lamesa down to Midland that route could be signed as a I-X27 route, such as "I-227". Connect it into Loop-250 and flip a coin on whether "I-227" takes over the East half or West half of Loop-250. I-14 would begin at I-20 somewhere on the Southeast side of Midland and then overlap TX-158 to Sterling City. From there you would have a I-14/I-27 concurrency into San Angelo.

Texas wants to have tons of suffixed route apparently.  I don't really care, but it does take the charm out of I-35 having the only remaining pair of suffixed routes now 69 and possibly has them.  As soon as I say that, that statement is still technically true.  I-35 has the only remaining suffixed routes from the original plan that had suffixes before suffixes were outlawed.

I like your idea for an I-14/27 cosign, if I didn't hate the I-14 concept to begin with. 

Can we rename some interstates while we're at it just to get a few more suffixes in the state?  I-37 is now I-35SE.  I-45 can now be I-35EE making it so I-49 can now be I-45.  I-30 can be I-20N40S!

[MATraveler128]

There are too many suffixed Interstates in the state of Texas. The reason for the 69 suffixes is because it was a congressional mandate. But they should be avoided as the FHWA doesn’t allow them. I don’t think I-27 needs them. Couldn’t they go with an I-127 to Midland/Odessa?

[Thegeet]

Wash the I-27W and I-27E designation as a result of Congress (like I-69 WCE) or was it something else?

[vdeane]

The I-27E/I-27W thing doesn't bother me. Midland-Odessa is a bigger metro than Big Spring, but Big Spring is on the US-87 main line where I-27 needs to be. A suffixed I-27E/I-27W approach would split the difference and not leave either metro feeling like they got short changed.

Here's another idea. Mind you, I don't like the I-14 thing, but that route number could be used as a consolation prize for Midland-Odessa. Big Spring gets the I-27 main line. Midland gets two different Interstate routes. From Lamesa down to Midland that route could be signed as a I-X27 route, such as "I-227". Connect it into Loop-250 and flip a coin on whether "I-227" takes over the East half or West half of Loop-250. I-14 would begin at I-20 somewhere on the Southeast side of Midland and then overlap TX-158 to Sterling City. From there you would have a I-14/I-27 concurrency into San Angelo.

Texas wants to have tons of suffixed route apparently.  I don't really care, but it does take the charm out of I-35 having the only remaining pair of suffixed routes now 69 and possibly has them.  As soon as I say that, that statement is still technically true.  I-35 has the only remaining suffixed routes from the original plan that had suffixes before suffixes were outlawed.

I like your idea for an I-14/27 cosign, if I didn't hate the I-14 concept to begin with. 

Can we rename some interstates while we're at it just to get a few more suffixes in the state?  I-37 is now I-35SE.  I-45 can now be I-35EE making it so I-49 can now be I-45.  I-30 can be I-20N40S!

I-27 is already I-86ESSESSSES

[The Ghostbuster]

The problem I have with designating any Interstate 27Es or Interstate 27Ws is that I completely agree with AASHTO that they should not be used (at least AASHTO used to be against designating them). Like I said in my previous post, the two Interstate 35Es and Interstate 35Ws in Texas and Minnesota were forgivable, but Interstates 69C/E/W should never have been approved. I've even heard that Texas may designate an Interstate 14N and an Interstate 14S in the future (14S should be mainline 14 and 14N should be Interstate 18). I don't know why Texas is being given an exemption from the long-standing discouragement of Interstate suffixes, but I think if one state is given a pass, all the states should also get one as well. it makes no sense to me.

[Bobby5280]

There are too many suffixed Interstates in the state of Texas. The reason for the 69 suffixes is because it was a congressional mandate. But they should be avoided as the FHWA doesn't allow them. I don't think I-27 needs them. Couldn't they go with an I-127 to Midland/Odessa?

The Lamesa-Midland segment would need to be an even-numbered route since it would terminate at Interstate highways on both ends. That's why I suggested "I-227" earlier.

The only thing I wouldn't like about an I-27E/I-27W arrangement is a potentially screwy route the I-27W route would have to take moving through Midland. If I-27W is routed around the East half of Loop 250 there isn't a simple way to get past the I-20/Loop 250 volleyball interchange down to TX-158. The West half of Loop 250 has more of an open door going South past I-20 there. But a lot more ground has to be covered to get back East to TX-158. Just having I-14 named on TX-158 would make the situation slightly easier.

The problem I have with designating any Interstate 27Es or Interstate 27Ws is that I completely agree with AASHTO that they should not be used (at least AASHTO used to be against designating them).

I have no problem with twin "E" and "W" routes serving "binary" cities, like what I-35 does. Midland-Odessa and Big Spring falls into a similar situation. The suffix routes for I-69 are more questionable. I think I-69E should have been an extension of I-37. I think the I-69 main line should go to Laredo, the busiest inland border city. I'm not sure what I-69C could have been called. "I-33" would be a possibility; I think the US-281 corridor going North out of San Antonio could become I-33 eventually. A creative overlap with I-37 could help create a much longer single route. The I-14 suffix route ideas are pretty ridiculous. Those should just be 3-digit routes off an I-14 parent route.

[kphoger]

Midland—Odessa is a binary city.
Midland—Big Spring is not.

[MikieTimT]

The problem I have with designating any Interstate 27Es or Interstate 27Ws is that I completely agree with AASHTO that they should not be used (at least AASHTO used to be against designating them). Like I said in my previous post, the two Interstate 35Es and Interstate 35Ws in Texas and Minnesota were forgivable, but Interstates 69C/E/W should never have been approved. I've even heard that Texas may designate an Interstate 14N and an Interstate 14S in the future (14S should be mainline 14 and 14N should be Interstate 18). I don't know why Texas is being given an exemption from the long-standing discouragement of Interstate suffixes, but I think if one state is given a pass, all the states should also get one as well. it makes no sense to me.

Seems to be a similar situation to Louisiana that begat I-12.

[abqtraveler]

The problem I have with designating any Interstate 27Es or Interstate 27Ws is that I completely agree with AASHTO that they should not be used (at least AASHTO used to be against designating them). Like I said in my previous post, the two Interstate 35Es and Interstate 35Ws in Texas and Minnesota were forgivable, but Interstates 69C/E/W should never have been approved. I've even heard that Texas may designate an Interstate 14N and an Interstate 14S in the future (14S should be mainline 14 and 14N should be Interstate 18). I don't know why Texas is being given an exemption from the long-standing discouragement of Interstate suffixes, but I think if one state is given a pass, all the states should also get one as well. it makes no sense to me.

Seems to be a similar situation to Louisiana that begat I-12.

I-69E, C, and W were designated as such because their designations were written into law by Congress. AASHTO had no choice in that decision, despite their antipathy toward suffixed route designations.

[vdeane]

The problem I have with designating any Interstate 27Es or Interstate 27Ws is that I completely agree with AASHTO that they should not be used (at least AASHTO used to be against designating them). Like I said in my previous post, the two Interstate 35Es and Interstate 35Ws in Texas and Minnesota were forgivable, but Interstates 69C/E/W should never have been approved. I've even heard that Texas may designate an Interstate 14N and an Interstate 14S in the future (14S should be mainline 14 and 14N should be Interstate 18). I don't know why Texas is being given an exemption from the long-standing discouragement of Interstate suffixes, but I think if one state is given a pass, all the states should also get one as well. it makes no sense to me.

Seems to be a similar situation to Louisiana that begat I-12.

I-69E, C, and W were designated as such because their designations were written into law by Congress. AASHTO had no choice in that decision, despite their antipathy toward suffixed route designations.

A less literal reading of the law could probably dispute that.  In any case, the I-69 situation is the poster child for why such decisions should be left with civil servants and not elected officials.

If it were up to me:
-I-35E TX would be a combo of a 3di and an extension of I-45; I-35W would be I-35.
-I-35E MN would be a 3di (truck restriction) and I-35W would be I-35.
-I-69E would be I-37, I-69C would be I-69, and I-69W would be I-6.
-I-27E would be I-27 and I-27W would be either no-build or a 3di depending on traffic needs.
-I-14N would be I-14 and I-14S would be no-build.

[Anthony_JK]

I'd keep the I-35 splits in DFW and MSP since they serve the same overall metro areas.

If I had my druthers on I-69, I-69W from Laredo to Victoria would become the original I-69 as proposed; I-69C would revert back to US 281, I-69E would become an extended I-37, and TX 44 would be upgraded as is.

I do agree on I-14 and I-27: one side of the split remains as the mainline, the other, if feasible, goes as a 3di.

[DJStephens]

Midland—Odessa is a binary city.
Midland—Big Spring is not.

    Was using US - 62/385 SSW of Lubbock ever proposed?  For upgrading to a potential I corridor?  Not super direct, but it shows on the map, as being all four lane down to Odessa, and it penetrates the Oil fields.   Also believe there were some minor upgrades just outside the Lubbock loop, a grade separation/interchange in Wolfforth, some time ago. 
    There must be significant political pull coming from tiny Big Spring, and also medium sized San Angelo.  Am going to have to assume there is greater N-S traffic counts from Odessa/Midland to Lubbock, than from Big Spring/San Angelo N-S to Lubbock.   

[Bobby5280]

I've never seen any I-27 proposals that utilize the US-385 corridor down into Odessa. It's too far out of the way for main line I-27 traffic heading to points farther South in Texas. The ultimate goal is an I-27 extension that connects to border cities in South Texas. That works more to push the route thru Big Spring and maybe have a possible West leg going through Midland. An I-27 extension to Odessa would only work if I-27 ended in Odessa.

[MATraveler128]

On the original map of the Ports to Plains corridor, it shows a route up US 287 to the Oklahoma panhandle. Is this supposed to imply a future route up to Limon? If this is real, it shouldn't dead end as soon as it reaches Oklahoma.

[Bobby5280]

The maps that have been tossed around lately just show Texas' portion of the Ports to Plains Corridor, with a fantasy leg going into NE New Mexico to connect to Raton.

The Ports to Plains Corridor, as originally drawn, does include Colorado and the tip of the Oklahoma Panhandle. Ultimately a North extension of I-27 could end at in Limon at I-70.

Without a lot of federal involvement (and funding) the entire corridor will be left up to individual states to develop on their own. Texas has far more motivation to build I-27 South out of Lubbock toward Laredo than it does extending it North out of Amarillo. That isn't going to change unless Colorado and Oklahoma show more interest in building out their portions of the corridor. I wish they would do so, because as a 2-lane route US-287 is not a safe drive going North of Boise City, OK into SE Colorado. That caprock transition area is a prime spot to have a fatal head-on collision, maybe with a semi truck. The very least thing they could do is divide the road into a standard 4-lane highway.

[rte66man]

The maps that have been tossed around lately just show Texas' portion of the Ports to Plains Corridor, with a fantasy leg going into NE New Mexico to connect to Raton.

The Ports to Plains Corridor, as originally drawn, does include Colorado and the tip of the Oklahoma Panhandle. Ultimately a North extension of I-27 could at in Limon at I-70.

Without a lot of federal involvement (and funding) the entire corridor will be left up to individual states to develop on their own. Texas has far more motivation to build I-27 South out of Lubbock toward Laredo than it does extending it North out of Amarillo. That isn't going to change unless Colorado and Oklahoma show more interest in building out their portions of the corridor. I wish they would do so, because as a 2-lane route US-287 is not a safe drive going North of Boise City, OK into SE Colorado. That caprock transition area is a prime spot to have a fatal head-on collision, maybe with a semi truck. The very least thing they could do is divide the road into a standard 4-lane highway.

Then I'm sure you will be glad to see this from the 8-Year Plan:

[Bobby5280]

That would be good to see. The sooner they can re-build that stretch of US-287 as a four lane divided road may translate into more lives saved. I just hope they build the road in a manner where a later upgrade to Interstate status would be easy.

Some of the four lane divided highways expanded from 2 lanes in the Lawton area within the last 30 years have been partly in response to fatal head-on collisions. That was the case with OK-7 between Lawton and Duncan. And it was certainly true for OK-49 in the Medicine Park area (from I-44 to the OK-58 turn up to Lake Lawtonka. I think plans are in the works to 4-lane OK-58 thru the Lake Lawtonka area. There is a growing amount of residential development there. And tourism traffic is much heavier now than it has been in the past.

Oklahoma generally has a better record on improving highways for safety than Colorado. Honestly Colorado is just pathetic in this category. I've talked about US-24 going Northeast out of Colorado Springs. CDOT 4-laned it to Falcon a long time ago, but haven't done squat past Falcon since then.  And that's despite numerous fatal accidents happening. The turns off US-24 to intersecting roads are tricky. Visibility is poor at night. There's a shit-ton of new residential development getting built out there. With the increasing traffic flow the road is getting more dangerous. Over the long term US-24 could be a freeway corridor eventually. But Colorado isn't thinking about the future, such as trying to preserve ROW along a 2-lane highway that should have been 4-lanes a long time ago.

Anyway, that policy of doing little as possible has me concerned about Colorado's portion of US-287 in the border region with Oklahoma. Will they ever 4-lane their part of it? Or will the New Urbanists try to pitch everyone on the idea of riding bicycles way out there?

[JayhawkCO]

That would be good to see. The sooner they can re-build that stretch of US-287 as a four lane divided road may translate into more lives saved.

Out of curiosity, how many people die per year on this stretch?

[DJStephens]

I've never seen any I-27 proposals that utilize the US-385 corridor down into Odessa. It's too far out of the way for main line I-27 traffic heading to points farther South in Texas. The ultimate goal is an I-27 extension that connects to border cities in South Texas. That works more to push the route thru Big Spring and maybe have a possible West leg going through Midland. An I-27 extension to Odessa would only work if I-27 ended in Odessa.

Yes that is true, using US - 385 to the W side of Odessa, would make it very hard to justify anything to the S of the I-20 corridor, in that area.   A whole lot of nothing.  Despite the 50 plus miles of four lane S of I-20.  And additional mileage, through nothing, including additional mountains, to bring it back to the US - 277 corridor.  In order to service Eagle Pass, Del Rio, and Laredo.   
A west leg (I-27 W) might overlay/utilize State route 349 S of Lamesa, and then wrap around Midland on the western side of Loop 250, before following State route 158 back to US - 87.   This could also have the effect of creating a Full Loop around Midland, by making an arc around it's southern edge.   

[Bobby5280]

Out of curiosity, how many people die per year on this stretch?

I don't have any numbers on it. One my girlfriend's friends died in a head-on colision on that stretch of road. I've driven the road myself and seen the potential hazards. It needs to be 4-lane divided and with some kind of physical barrier, even if it's just a cable barrier.

A west leg (I-27 W) might overlay/utilize State route 349 S of Lamesa, and then wrap around Midland on the western side of Loop 250, before following State route 158 back to US - 87.   This could also have the effect of creating a Full Loop around Midland, by making an arc around it's southern edge.

It would be shorter for an I-27W route to use the East half of Loop 250 then span down to TX-158 along or near CR-1130. Unfortunately there is a lot of obstacles in the way, some of which include large homes with high income residents. The West half of Loop 250 meets I-20 at more of an open door with Antelope Trail. There is more room to build a freeway to freeway interchange with I-20. It looks like Antelope Trail starts what could be a South loop from I-20 back over to TX-158. I'm not 100% certain on this though. There are numerous pipeline corridors in the Midland-Odessa area too. But this looks like a planned road with at least enough ROW for a 4-lane divided road with at-grade intersections.